Skip to comments.
Supreme Court says government can move Jose Padilla to Florida to face charges
The AP via New York Newsday ^
| January 4, 2006
Posted on 01/04/2006 1:29:53 PM PST by new yorker 77
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court orders transfer of Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: enemycombatant; gwot; padilla; ruling; scotus; terrortrials
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
To: saveliberty
Does this mean we can hang him now?
21
posted on
01/04/2006 1:42:37 PM PST
by
tiredoflaundry
(I'll admit it , I'm a Snow Flake !)
To: Peach
It's a shame ole sparky is not up and running anymore.
22
posted on
01/04/2006 1:42:39 PM PST
by
GarySpFc
(De Oppresso Liber)
To: babaloo
I'm not sure I can even remember a time he was right. It must be like being a weatherman for him -- he's got a 50-50 shot of being right and no consequences for when he's wrong.
23
posted on
01/04/2006 1:42:57 PM PST
by
Peach
To: new yorker 77
don't get too excited folks, the key part in the article is:
"The high court said it would decide later whether to review Padilla's challenge to his military detention."
that is the crux of this case - whether the SCOTUS will toss the enemy combatant designation entirely. they will still rule on that matter at a later time apparently.
for now, it means Padilla goes to court on these lesser charges in civilian court. let's just hope its not another Sammi Al Arian type jury of Floridians empaneled. Padilla could still walk on all of this.
To: babaloo; Peach
Did Judge Napolitano weigh in yet?I won't be satisfied until I hear from John Dean!
25
posted on
01/04/2006 1:43:31 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
To: Cboldt
The case to move Padilla to a civil authority. Have you not been reading the other comments posted here?
26
posted on
01/04/2006 1:43:57 PM PST
by
Peach
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
Thanks for reminding us about that one.
27
posted on
01/04/2006 1:44:25 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
To: Peach
no, that's not the "case" they are referring to. the "case" they are saying the administration will lose is the one about his combatant designation - and that one is still in play.
To: tiredoflaundry
Not yet. I think that hanging isn't an option under the law anymore is it?
Unless you have the court determine that he's a work of art in which case he should be hung.
29
posted on
01/04/2006 1:44:44 PM PST
by
saveliberty
(Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
To: Howlin
LOL. I'll bet Nancy Pelosi is lining Dean up now for the Sunday shows to tell us how wrong SCOTUS was to make this decision :-)
30
posted on
01/04/2006 1:44:58 PM PST
by
Peach
To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
To: new yorker 77
The "Bush Wins" part of the title may be premature. The Court's
Order authorizes Padilla's transfer to civilian custody but makes it clear that the Court has not yet decided whether or not it will grant review of the case.
To: GarySpFc
Hah! Must be nice having a job as a commentator like Napolitano and be able to be wrong so often and still keep the job.
33
posted on
01/04/2006 1:45:47 PM PST
by
Peach
To: saveliberty
I have a lot of laundry line.......
;-)
34
posted on
01/04/2006 1:45:53 PM PST
by
tiredoflaundry
(I'll admit it , I'm a Snow Flake !)
To: Peach
Lawyers are by definition people who use the law for the special purposes of their clients. That does not mean they know what is lawful.
35
posted on
01/04/2006 1:46:07 PM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: oceanview
Napolitano has commented about both instances and he lost on this one.
36
posted on
01/04/2006 1:46:25 PM PST
by
Peach
To: Cboldt
The legal issues and posture are a bit more complex than "legal/illegal,"...
Thanks for the ping on the other thread. I'm waiting to hear the details. But I can hardly believe that a majority of the Court would back the Administration. Maybe, and a pretty thin maybe at that, the Court is finally coming to the realization that the President and the Congress are responsible for conducting war; fear of a backlash which could seriously harm the Court's credibility might be in play here.
37
posted on
01/04/2006 1:46:26 PM PST
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
To: Peach
38
posted on
01/04/2006 1:46:28 PM PST
by
OldFriend
(The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
To: tiredoflaundry
LOL! I knew that you would.
Should we file the case now?
39
posted on
01/04/2006 1:47:04 PM PST
by
saveliberty
(Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
To: Cboldt
I wonder if the SCOTUS will also duck it (the combatant designation case)? maybe there has been some implicit agreement that if the administration no longer uses it, the SCOTUS will agree not to rule on it, now that Padilla is headed to civilian court on other charges?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-88 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson